When exactly did Marvel start selling "direct edition" books? 1 1

[Sweet Lou 14]

Hi everyone,

Before posing my question, here's a link that should help explain the background of what I'm talking about:

https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/why-do-some-comic-book-barcodes-have-a-line-through-them/

OK, now for the question.  I'll start by cutting to the chase:  In filling in my Bronze Age Spider-Man run, I'm struggling to figure out whether there is such a thing as a direct edition copy of Amazing Spider-Man #192.

It's easy to confirm just by searching around on eBay that direct editions exist for #193 and up.  Here's my recently-purchased copy of #193:

But with #192, the only graded copies I see available are (for lack of a better term) newsstand editions like this one I just pulled off eBay:

As it turns out, #192 is the first 40-cent issue in the run, dated May 1979.  #193 is dated a month later (duh), June 1979.  You can observe the same pattern across the Marvel line:  starting in June 1979 you'll definitely find direct edition copies, with the diamond in the upper left corner and the line through the bar code, for any title.  I've never seen a line through the bar code for any May 1979 book.  However, here are two examples of May 1979 books that do show a diamond in the upper left corner and a blank rectangle in place of the bar code:

Now, despite having thought about this a lot, I'm still by no means an expert ... but I believe the larger "Starburst" diamond shape on the Cap #233 denotes it as a Whitman variant (Google it if you want to go off on that tangent!).  The ASM #192, however, shows the same diamond shape I associate with Marvel's standard direct editions.  This, along with my OCD telling me that it sure would be nice if direct editions began at exactly the same time as the price increase to 40 cents, has me searching for a similar copy of ASM #192 in CGC 9.6 with white pages.

Here's the thing though ... I have a feeling that this may not only be an impossible quest, but also potentially a misguided one.  So before I end up like Captain Ahab, I'm hoping there's an expert out there who can tell me, definitively, whether this ASM #192 with the blank bar code is a "direct edition" in the same vein as the ASM #193 I posted above, or something else (and if something else, exactly what else).  There are plenty of 9.6 "newsstand" copies of ASM #192 to be found out there, and I'm ready to just buy one if I know for sure that I haven't given up too soon on finding a direct edition.

Thanks to anyone with the patience to take all this in and (hopefully) some knowledge to share!

Edited September 2, 2018 by Sweet Lou 14

[NP_Gresham]

How do you know which were Whitmans and which were direct editions?

The Whitmans I know go back to ASM #165.

I have a 3 pack of whitman's still in the bag with #186, #187 and #188.

 

[Sweet Lou 14]

3 hours ago, NP_Gresham said:

How do you know which were Whitmans and which were direct editions?

The Whitmans I know go back to ASM #165.

I have a 3 pack of whitman's still in the bag with #186, #187 and #188.

 

Not sure if I understand your question.  I'm not an expert on Whitmans, but I am pretty sure the Cap #233 is one based on what I have read.  What I don't know is whether the blank rectangle version of ASM #192 (which has a different diamond logo than the Cap #233) is also a Whitman, or Marvel's first attempt at distinguishing direct-edition books before switching to the diagonal line, or something else entirely.

(To be clear, I'm not trying to collect Whitman variants, if that helps.)

Edited September 2, 2018 by Sweet Lou 14

[NP_Gresham]

The blank bar codes were in the Whitman 3 packs, but what makes you think they were ONLY in the Whitman 3 packs?

They may have been dual purpose.

Edited September 2, 2018 by NP_Gresham

[Sweet Lou 14]

1 hour ago, NP_Gresham said:

The blank bar codes were in the Whitman 3 packs, but what makes you think they were ONLY in the Whitman 3 packs?

They may have been dual purpose.

 

What makes you think I think that?  

Again, please take a close look at the upper left corner of the Cap #332, which shows the distinct "starburst" diamond shape that also appears on the Whitman examples you've posted, and then look at the ASM #192 with the blank rectangle, which has a diamond shape that matches the direct edition of ASM #193.

Here are three more books from that same month (May 1979) that don't look like Whitman books to me.  Maybe they are, I just don't know.

Hoping there's somebody out there who can state definitively the answer to two specific questions:

1. What exactly are the blank-rectangle copies above, that don't have the distinctive Whitman starburst in the upper-left corner?  Are they Whitmans, or are they direct editions, or are they something else?
2. Does there exist a "direct" version of May 1979 books at all, or did that start in June 1979?

[divad]

Here are my two copies of ASM #193, I'll have to go to my other computer to see what my 192s looked like:

Edited September 2, 2018 by divad

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 hours ago, Sweet Lou 14 said:

Hi everyone,

Before posing my question, here's a link that should help explain the background of what I'm talking about:

https://rarecomics.wordpress.com/why-do-some-comic-book-barcodes-have-a-line-through-them/

OK, now for the question.  I'll start by cutting to the chase:  In filling in my Bronze Age Spider-Man run, I'm struggling to figure out whether there is such a thing as a direct edition copy of Amazing Spider-Man #192.

It's easy to confirm just by searching around on eBay that direct editions exist for #193 and up.  Here's my recently-purchased copy of #193:

But with #192, the only graded copies I see available are (for lack of a better term) newsstand editions like this one I just pulled off eBay:

As it turns out, #192 is the first 40-cent issue in the run, dated May 1979.  #193 is dated a month later (duh), June 1979.  You can observe the same pattern across the Marvel line:  starting in June 1979 you'll definitely find direct edition copies, with the diamond in the upper left corner and the line through the bar code, for any title.  I've never seen a line through the bar code for any May 1979 book.  However, here are two examples of May 1979 books that do show a diamond in the upper left corner and a blank rectangle in place of the bar code:

Now, despite having thought about this a lot, I'm still by no means an expert ... but I believe the larger "Starburst" diamond shape on the Cap #233 denotes it as a Whitman variant (Google it if you want to go off on that tangent!).  The ASM #192, however, shows the same diamond shape I associate with Marvel's standard direct editions.  This, along with my OCD telling me that it sure would be nice if direct editions began at exactly the same time as the price increase to 40 cents, has me searching for a similar copy of ASM #192 in CGC 9.6 with white pages.

Here's the thing though ... I have a feeling that this may not only be an impossible quest, but also potentially a misguided one.  So before I end up like Captain Ahab, I'm hoping there's an expert out there who can tell me, definitively, whether this ASM #192 with the blank bar code is a "direct edition" in the same vein as the ASM #193 I posted above, or something else (and if something else, exactly what else).  There are plenty of 9.6 "newsstand" copies of ASM #192 to be found out there, and I'm ready to just buy one if I know for sure that I haven't given up too soon on finding a direct edition.

Thanks to anyone with the patience to take all this in and (hopefully) some knowledge to share!

First things first:

That blog, by a guy named "Benjamin Nobel", is filled with errors, and the owner/author is unwilling to correct them, or even listen to corrections. He blocks people from commenting when they point out errors, and he's even called (and had his friends call) CGC and accuse members here of "cyber bullying."

It has a lot of things that are true, but a lot of things that are false, which makes the whole blog completely unreliable, because how would someone tell what was fact, and what wasn't? For example: 

"Before 1979, comics were all distributed via the newsstand distribution model of returnable sales — unsold copies could be returned to the publisher for a refund."

This is not true. The Direct distribution system existed as early as 1973, the result of efforts by Phil Seuling, Bud Plant, and others. Marvel, to combat retailers gaming the system and buying books through the Direct system for a substantial discount, and then returning them via newsstand returns, started experimenting with cover markings in late 1976...NOT 1979, as Nobel erroneously claims. 

This is an early Direct market example:

Now, it is absolutely and completely true that Western Publishing, under its Whitman brand and imprint, was a big early adopter of the Direct system, because they didn't return comics anyway, and it allowed them a bigger discount. And, far and away, Whitman was the biggest consumer of Direct market books in the mid to late 70s, for their 3-pack program.

BUT...it probably was NOT true that, as some have claimed, that these cover markings came about BECAUSE of Whitman, because by the time Whitman got around to distributing books, they were already many months old; long past the time for claiming returns. As well, as just mentioned...Whitman didn't return books. In fact, they really couldn't return books, because of the way they marketed and distributed them. 

So why DID they introduce those cover markings?

Because the Direct system wasn't exclusive to Whitman. 

Before the "fat diamonds", Marvel had no way to note who was trying to game the system. So, they instituted the "fat diamonds", and now they could track who got what. If anyone tried to return those, Marvel would laugh at them, and tell them to go away. The program was sporadic, and almost certainly based on Whitman's ordering patterns, as the chart on this page shows:

http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/Direct/index.php

By early 1977, Whitman informed the circulation dept. at Marvel that printing the UPC code on these books was a problem for them (UPCs having been introduced to the covers a little over a year earlier, with the June, 1976 issues at Marvel), because clerks were scanning the UPC for a single issue, rather than ringing up the price for the 3-pack. To solve this, Marvel decided to print their "blank UPC boxes", so this error would stop.

Now, it's also true that DC had a specially marked "Whitman" program, starting in 1978...but that program was exclusively for Whitman, with the "Whitman" logo and name printed on the cover. That was not true for Marvel.

This statement, by Nobel, is also inaccurate: "And Marvel initially solved it (the problem of shops returning Direct market copies) by putting a diagonal line through the barcodes of direct sold copies." That line through the barcode was a continuation of the "blank UPC" program previously in force. The real marker was the "skinny diamond", which debuted company wide with the June, 1979 cover dated books....which had already been in use on several books prior to this time, going back to 1977:

 

It would be a mistake to call Marvel Direct market copies of 1977-1979 "Whitmans", as many have done, because they were clearly meant for more than just Whitman. To answer your question, then, yes, there absolutely IS a Direct market version of ASM #192...and several issues before that, going back to #165.

And I would advise everyone reading this to take anything and everything that the "rarecomics" blog takes with multiple grains of salt, and not take anything said there at face value. Confirm, for your sake.

Edited September 3, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[divad]

And here is my ASM 192, consistent with your observations.

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 hours ago, Sweet Lou 14 said:

but I believe the larger "Starburst" diamond shape on the Cap #233 denotes it as a Whitman variant

The "starburst" was Marvel's way of letting customers know that a price increase was imminent, and had nothing to do with Whitman or the Direct market in general. Marvel, in particular, began this in 1976:

The "fat diamond" and "skinny diamond", however, were early Direct market cover markings. Where they coincided, then, is a matter of circumstance, not one having to do with the other.

[divad]

I don't read "rare comics blogs" as they typically pontificate. That's more or less why I don't pay much attention to RMA's posts either.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, divad said:

I don't read "rare comics blogs" as they typically pontificate. That's more or less why I don't pay much attention to RMA's posts either.

 

Now, now, don't be mad because your Excalibur outlier and overgraded books were called out by @FlyingDonut, @Pirate and @Lazyboy

I thought we left this silly stuff behind us years ago.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, divad said:

You're such a child. You have to respond to each and every post that mentions you. 

Now, now...there's no need for these personal comments. You fired an unprovoked shot across the bow; you ought not be surprised that you get a response. I'm trying to help the guy with the question, you're just trying to stir the poop.

"  "

 

[divad]

11 hours ago, Sweet Lou 14 said:

I'm struggling to figure out whether there is such a thing as a direct edition copy of Amazing Spider-Man #192.

I checked my copies, and didn't find one. A google image search yields only the two you've posted, except for a 35-cent copy posted on Marvel.com (which frankly doesn't even look real.)

[divad]

Except that you ignored his only question. And btw, case in point. 

Edited September 2, 2018 by divad

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, divad said:

Except that you ignored his only question. And, case in point. 

Pay attention:

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

To answer your question, then, yes, there absolutely IS a Direct market version of ASM #192.

See that? Already answered.

Now, go list some more overgraded books, and quit trying to start a fight. "  "

[divad]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Pay attention:

See that? Already answered.

Now, go list some more overgraded books, and quit trying to start a fight. "  "

You've never even posted a link to one of your sales on the boards.  And where's your direct copy of ASM 192?  I have no interest whatsoever in fighting with you. You just routinely make stuff up to fit your self-image.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by divad

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, divad said:

You've never even posted a link to one of your sales on the boards.  And where's your direct copy of ASM 192?

 

And THIS IS a Direct copy of ASM #192, already posted by the OP:

 

[divad]

Where's the evidence of the people gaming the return system?  If a retailer had an invoice for buying newsstand books, then they could return them. You must be referring to the distributors and sub-distributors, not the retailers.

[RockMyAmadeus]

[divad]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And THIS IS a Direct copy of ASM #192, already posted by the OP:

 

Thanks for a link to "zero results" whatever that meant to illustrate.

And that is not the answer to his question (you should take the time to read his post, instead of acting like a know-it-all.

cheers,

d